Literature Circles: A Constructivist Approach to Literacy

Camille McFarlane ETEC 530

As an ESL/Language Arts teacher in a high-needs school I am regularly asked: how can we improve literacy rates? I have regularly been challenged by this question and have attempted to employ a variety of literacy strategies (such as..?)such as guided reading, independent reading, literacy skills lessons and literature circles.. Many techniques thought to improve literacy are teacher-directed and not constructivist in nature. Instead of teaching reading strategies, my goal is to engage students in authentic learning, embedding the strategies within the literature discussion. With this in mind, I began developing literature circles. Literature circles have proven to increase student motivation, engagement in learning, collaboration and also independence (Parsons, Metzger, Askew & Carswell, 2011). During literature circles readers come together to build conversational skills for talking about texts in enlightening, personal and thoughtful ways (Brabham & Villaume, 2000, p. 279). I have found literature circles encourage student interest in learning more than traditional literacy strategies such as teacher-directed strategies or vocabulary lessons. I believe that the social constructivist strategy of literature circles combined with computermediated communication will further increase student literacy levels. A Constructivist Approach Vygotskys notion of students constructing and internalizing meaning through social interaction is central to literature circles. Literature circles provide the forum for authentic learning to occur as a result of a social constructivist model combining independent and cooperative learning (Thomas & Hofmeister, 2002). Primeaux (2000) believes literacy levels will increase when literacy activities are social interactions. Students, not the teacher, take ownership (Au, 1998) by posing questions, responding critically and expanding on others ideas (Brabham & Villaume, 2000). Literature circles

provide the opportunity for scaffolding in the form of student conversations resulting in a move to higher level thinking (Brabham & Villaume, 2000). Student involvement is the premise for literature circles. Research has shown literature circles improve literacy rates because they utilize the social constructivist techniques of student engagement, choice and responsibility (Daniels, 2006). Teachers select authentic texts for students to read (Primeaux, 2000); placing students in groups based on their choice of text. The groups meet regularly to discuss the text, taking on various roles throughout the text inquiry. Literature circles are effective as all students are responsible for their own learning. This form of constructivist learning has proven to create reflective and responsive readers and develop higher order thinking skills, thereby improving student-reading abilities (Speigel, 1998). There is debate about whether literature circles should take on the form of projectbased learning, problem-based learning or cooperative learning. Daniels, an early developer of literature circles, believes teachers should limit project-based learning. Daniels (2006) compares student literature circles to adult book clubs, stating that adults do not complete a project at the end of an interesting book, instead their knowledge constructions and skills of inferring, visualizing and connecting can be demonstrated through discussions and reflections. Literature circles encourage cooperative learning through questioning, with students coming to a group consensus in order to solve problems. I appreciate Daniels perspective, however projects during student inquiry into a book may provide additional engagement for students. Project-based literacy learning (PBLL) has been utilized to improve literacy rates. Parsons, Metzger, Askew and Carswell (2011), completed a case study where students had

the opportunity to construct meaning through authentic student-directed tasks of literature circles with an end project. The researchers found PBLL empowered students to read and write because they were interacting meaningfully with texts, collaborating with others and expressing their own views (Parsons et al., 2011). I suggest the concern with PBLL occurs when teachers have the students complete a project such as a book report solely for assessment purposes. PBLL would only be effective if constructivist assessment approaches of student choice and inquiry were applied. Instead of creating project-based literature circles, I believe Daniels would agree they should encompass both cooperative and problem-based learning. Literature circles are most effective if approached from a combined problem-based and cooperative learning philosophy. Cooperative learning enables students to cooperate and communicate in the process of acquiring knowledge (Bruffee, 1995, p. 18). While participating in literature circles, students will be confronted with a number of problems they will have to solve collaboratively. By working together to solve problems encountered within their text, students are participating in authentic group learning. Cooperative and problem-based learning support students in their literacy development and the co-construction of knowledge. Why Literature Circles The constructivist design of literature circles ensures student engagement, motivation and ownership. Literature circles differ from more traditional literacy techniques such as guided reading because students are in charge of their own learning and teachers take on a facilitator role. This learning format encourages students to become critical readers, dialogue critically, co-construct new understandings, build upon previous

learning and read to make sense of life (Short, 1999). This is contrary to guided reading, which focuses on reading strategies and is primarily teacher lead (Short, 1999). The move away from teacher-directed literacy instruction to student led literature circles is a move towards student-centred learning. Literature circles are a form of Bruners discovery learning that are driven by the learners need to make sense of the world (Heald-Taylor, 1996, p. 461). Students take on the role of both problem solvers and problem posers, thereby engaging in the text on a higher level. Student engagement will increase during literacy circles because students have the choice of text and discussion topic, as well as sharing responsibility for learning. Engagement is demonstrated because students are motivated by the material, use multiple strategies to ensure comprehension, are able to construct new knowledge as a result of the interaction with the text, and draw on social interactions to mediate texts (Casey, 2008, p. 286). Each student takes on a specific cooperative role within their group, ensuring accountability to the text, themselves and their group during the discussions. The teacher no longer leads the learning. By placing the ownership for learning on students, teachers are finding literature circles also engage and support struggling readers. Because each student has a role to play within their group, each must share their ideas and questions about the reading. This cooperative format provides all learners with confidence and demonstrates to struggling students that their ideas and questions matter. The support of their peers will then further motivate struggling readers to continue reading and discussing their thoughts (Anderson & Corbett, 2008; Casey, 2008; Brabham & Villaume, 2000). Heald-Taylor (1996) found that by learning through literature circles, the group is able to create knowledge and understandings that go beyond the current capabilities of any individual within the group,

thereby enhancing the learning experience of both students with learning difficulties and those without. Teachers can further support struggling readers by providing just in time scaffolding of reading strategies (Primeaux, 2000) and utilizing audio books, choral reading, or paired reading (Brabham & Villaume, 2000). Literature circles focus on the social constructivist notion of emphasizing learners strengths rather than their deficits (Primeaux, 2000, p. 538). This constructivist philosophy provides a positive learning environment, thereby motivating students to explore the text, challenge themselves with the readings and participate in the discussion. Technology Integration With a classroom of digital natives (Prensky, 2001), teachers must engage students with the medium in which they are most comfortable. For many students, this is within an on-line environment. By recognizing students are most comfortable learning digitally, teachers can ensure their engagement and continued construction of knowledge. Literature circles can easily be implemented on-line and have been proven effective in a computermediated environment. Xin and Feenberg (2007) state that during computer mediated communication (CMC), individual members acquire new concepts and achieve conceptual change through deliberate co-construction of knowledge in the group (p. 419). When approached from a constructivist perspective, CMC has the potential to positively affect knowledge construction, and thereby literacy rates. Combining the constructivist literature circle approach with online collaborative tools such as wikis and blogs, has proven to increase knowledge construction and literacy engagement. I have found it difficult at times to engage students in a text or the ensuing discussion. When I have added CMC, I have experienced increased success engaging all students.

Thomas and Hofmeister (2002) found online discussions to be a stimulus for students; however simply moving the literature circle to an online environment does not improve literacy rates. The researchers found virtual literature circles would only enhance knowledge construction with thoughtful problem-posing guidance from the teacher (Thomas & Hofmeister, 2002). Similar to non-virtual literature circles, the problem-posing and problem-solving discussion is essential for knowledge construction. On-line literature circles have the potential to provide a cooperative workspace where all student ideas are valued. Wikis, a collaborative writing space where groups of people collectively generate writing and edit the writing (Kissel, Hathaway & Wood, 2010, p. 59), are an ideal environment for a digital literature circle. Potential strengths of literature circle wikis are student contribution of text, images, hyperlinks, audio and video; the potential to store, search and retrieve information; online collaborative and interactive discussions; authentic learning through choice of topics, texts and discussion forum; and creating shared understandings over time and space (Sanden & Darragh, 2011). While participating in a two-school collaborative literature circle wiki, Schillinger (2011) found students were more likely to contribute to the discussion than in the traditional classroom. The researcher found the wiki environment contained more active discussions, enabled students to pose original topics, increased the level of collaboration, demonstrated improved meta-cognitive thinking and encouraged students to share personal experiences (Schillinger, 2011). Similarly, Kissel, Hathaway and Wood (2010), found wikis to enhance literacy skills because the students were learning in a digital collaborative literacy environment. The potential for deeper thinking as a result of digital collaboration makes wikis an attractive extension of literature circles.

When implementing literature circles in a wiki, Sanden and Darragh (2011) found student literacy skills to improve as a result of student driven discussion. For example, students would deliberate over an unfamiliar vocabulary word. Together, the students would come to consensus of the meaning, based on text context and individual experience (Sanden & Darragh, 2011). Instead of the teacher providing the definition or leading this discussion, the teacher moderated and guided the discussion, allowing vocabulary development to occur authentically. Group members support each other on-line in understanding the texts and making connections within the text and their individual lives (Kissel et al., 2010). Because a wiki records and provides the opportunity for multiple discussions to occur at once, students are able to make connections among topics and participate in the thread most meaningful to them. Blogs are another form of CMC ideal for literature circles. When blogs are used for literature circles, students are provided with both a personal and a collaborative space. Students can record their journals on-line and cooperate just as if they are in the classroom: responding to their classmates thoughts, posing additional questions, solving problems and making connections between topics. Applying blogging to literature circles will work because as noted by Henning (as cited in Huffaker, 2004): between 40 and 50% of all bloggers are under twenty. Students may connect more intimately with the digital medium and therefore be further engaged in the literature circle activity. Huffaker believes blogging will contribute to increased literacy rates because blogs promote literacy through digital storytelling, are a collaborative environment, enable students to access the learning environment anytime and encourage students to build upon previous experiences (2004). I believe both wiki and blog literature circles are excellent examples of CMC instructional

strategies that promote critical inquiry, deep learningand promote higher levels of thinking (Xin & Feenberg, 2007, p. 419). Conclusion Literature circles have the opportunity to improve literacy rates by engaging students in deeper learning and collaborative knowledge construction. Students are responsible for their own learning and are motivated by the social constructivist principles of student choice, collaboration and authenticity available in literature circles. Blogs and wikis further provide teachers with an avenue to engage students. The CMC environment encourages literature discussions where the focus is placed on literacy improvement through cooperation. Literature circles are not blatant literacy instruction. Literature circles should be viewed as a mechanism to improve literacy rates holistically, ensuring knowledge construction through authentic learning.

References Anderson, P. & Corbett, L. (2008) Literature circles for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 25-33 doi: 10.1177/ 1053451208318681 Au, K. (1998) Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297-319. doi: 10.1080/10862969809548000 Brabham, E. & Villaume, S. (2000). Questions and answers: Continuing conversations about literature circles. The Reading Teacher, 54(3), 278-280. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/general/publications/journals/rt.aspx Casey, H. (2008). Engaging the disengaged: Using learning clubs to motivate struggling adolescent readers and writers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 284294. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.4.2 Daniels, H. (2006). Whats the next big thing with literature circles? Voices From the Middle, 13(4), 10 15. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/vm Heald-Taylor, B. (1996). Three Paradigms for literature instruction in Grades 3 to 6. The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 456-466. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/ general/publications/journals/rt.aspx Huffaker, D. (2004). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. First Monday, 9(6-7). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ Kissel , B., Hathaway, J. & Wood, K. (2010). Digital collaborative literacy: Using wikis to promote social learning and literacy development. Middle School Journal, 41, 58- 64. Retrieved from http://www.amle.org/Publications/Middle School

10

Journal/tabid/435/Default.aspx Parsons, S., Metzger, S., Askew, J., & Carswell, A. (2011). Teaching against the grain: One Title I schools journey toward project-based literacy instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/19388070903318413 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 2-6. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/ journals.htm?id=oth Primeaux, J. (2000). Focus on research: Shifting perspectives on struggling readers. Language Arts, 77(6), 537-542. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/journals/la Thomas, M & Hofmeister, D. (2002). Assessing the effectiveness of technology integration: message boards for strengthening literacy. Computers & Education, 38, 233240. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-and-education/ Sanden, S. & Darragh, J. (2011). Wiki use in the 21st-century literacy classroom: A framework for evaluation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 6-20. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/ Schillinger, T. (2011). Blurring boundaries: Two groups of girls collaborate on a wiki. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6), 403-413. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.6.2 Short, K. (1999). The search for balance in a literature-rich curriculum. Theory into Practice, 38(3), 130-137. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/ titles/00405841.asp Spiegel, D. (1998) Silver bullets, babies, and bath water: Literature response groups in a balanced literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 52(2), 114-124. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/general/publications/journals/rt.aspx

11

Xin, M. & Feenberg, A. (2007). Pedagogy in cyberspace: The dynamics of online discussion. E-Learning and Digital Media, 4(4), 415-432. Retrieved from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/elea/

12